For those who disagree with the idea of one Creator - God...in all grace and humility, would ask you to provide a really plausible argument for anything else...considering the overwhelming evidence otherwise - (ie: creation itself). Why should I buy the idea of atoms banging around for a trillion years creates you and I, and the complexity of us - and who made the atoms, btw? Go beyond matter...how would you then account for thought, reason, our emotions of love, etc? Just wondering...
You know what? All of you shut the door! If you are muslim, christian or whatever, or you believe in science, you certainly have a reason. So believe in whatever you want, but do not try to feed the others woth your belief. That's all from me. I am protestant and a friend of mine is a muslim.
I always feel like I want to shed tears whenever I hear this song and I can see that human is nothing in front of this almighty Creator God . I can not say more Except "how great thou art oh lord ."
So beautiful Joy, thank you for this wonderful gift with this video creation show casing our earth paradise, one of God's precious creation, and the song is just perfect! A fav in every way. Very uplifting video of Nature in awesome glory... Love it, excellent and inspiring! Hugs, Gisl
man, you sound really angry. don't see any vulgar slamming of your position on religion or anything else. G_d always seems to cause a stir in those who say they could care less...............hmmmm!
absolutely beautiful expression of the awesomeness of God. How can you not feel the presence of the Almighty Creator when you view the beauty His hands have made. He is worthy of our praise and adoration.
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20
"I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well"
@evman5000 God created the people who created Puff th Magic Dragon song, poem etc. You mock believers huh? Some people choose to ignore God ... some choose to KNOW Him. Every choice is free and has its consequences.
@michaeldjoseph Interesting, and completely unoriginal, claims. Now why don't you try to justify them by explaining exactly how you THINK you know that? And WHICH god...Brahma...Vishnu...Shiva...Zeus...Ahura Mazda...Atum...Ptah...Amun...Ra...Jupiter...Kukulkan...Quetzalcoatl...Jehovah...Yahweh...Ja...Jesus...Maitreya...Krishna...? I am sure you have done your DUE DILIGENCE & RESEARCH on these subjects...right? So you would know for sure, of course! Or do you have a...REALLY STRONG FEELING?
@evman5000 Just watch the video and listen to the song dude! The fool said in his heart there is no God. Ha ha ha! The evidence is in your face and you still don't see it. You want to analyze it with your limited knowledge and old arguments! Did you think the world, creation, life and God is limited by your little knowledge of "RESEARCH" known to you. Ha ha ha! I can tell you life wa not created by atheists. Ha ha ha. When you die, tell them your story! HA HA HA!
@coolstufftt HUH??? I don't know what all that dribble you typed was supposed to mean, but , NO, I was challenging YOUR CONCLUSIONS...silly Fool! Some atheists DO arrogantly presume the non-existence of a supreme consciousness...I happen to be quite certain THERE IS superior consciousness underlying Reality. However, IT IS NOT JESUS...or ALLAH...or ANY other PERSONALITY that you arrogantly LIMIT this 'Being' to! The ONLY way you know ANYTHING at all is because you EXPERIENCE THRU THE SENSES!
@evman5000 One day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Hopefully before death. Too late will be the cry of so many. So you believe in " superior consciousness" and you say it is not a bunch of things ... with out proof, evidence, facts ... just based on your feelings and senses, the very thing you accuse believers of basing beliefs on. Think about it. Hmmm.
@coolstufftt You're not very good with logic, are you? My (non-absolute) claim is based entirely on what I have observed in the external reality (Scientific Observation) & in the internal reality (MY Mind). Both realms of experience support my hypothesis. Neither, demonstrates ANYTHING that supports the Jesus myth! We can NOT prove what is experienced within; we can ONLY find correlation in the outer, shared reality! Hence, if you cannot corroborate your claims...they exist ONLY in your mind!
@evman5000 You sound like a fool who got a small bit of knowledge and thought himself to be wise. I have a degree in math and logic. You need a contradiction to disprove a theory. Knowledge is still different from wisdom. Respect for God is the beginning of wisdom. I won't bother to reply to you further. It's not wise to argue with a fool.
@coolstufftt Your attempt to condescendingly dismiss my position is a typical cop-out for someone who has met his intellectual-match! "Respect for God is the beginning of wisdom"...Really? Not according to the MAN-MADE dictionary! HOW DO YOU KNOW THE THINGS YOU PROCLAIM? You are the FOOL, my friend, who carelessly mangles language and violates its logical principles! Go debate with someone who agrees with you, DUMB ASS!
@evman5000 "the only way you know...EXPERIENCE THRU THE SENSES." Think about that for just a momernt. All of history before your birth you know by acceptance of information passed on from others. You didn't experience it. Math is logic, not experience. Then too, there is the human spirit. Probably you would not recognize that as a "sense." But most of the world would disagree - not because they have been taught it, because they experience it. It is wise to think before you speak.
@campdon "All of history ..." So whats your point? Do you not see the relationship between the validity of historical accuracy and being closer to or further from the source and/or time frame? The further removed, the less reliable the information. And 'Logic' can only be known...THROUGH THE SENSES!!! I believe in Spirit...it's the force that animates living beings. But to give this ethereal force a limited human-like personality is just childish and an insult to intelligence & potential!!!
@evman5000 I think you are misreading my post. I am simply saying that history is not known by personal experience or the senses. The same for logic -not known through experience. BUT some things are known through the senses. Whatever your definition of spirit is, most people in the world recognize that we have a spiritual sense and that it does inform us of things not known by other senses.
@campdon Correct, history CANNOT be known by personal experience, but it is only thru using the senses that we know whatever bits & pieces we do. Trying to discern what the senses perceive is challenging enough...attempting to rationalize a 'spiritual' sense of knowing is inherently self-contradictory. Therefore, any rationale based on non-sensual experience is null & void and might I add JUST PLAIN FOOLISH! As for 'most people'...shoot me in the head if I am ever caught thinking like them!
@campdon Relating colors to temperature would be useless in such conveyance to a blind person, so your metaphor is invalid. Rationalization is a Mental process, not Spiritual, hence, being the intermediary layer of consciousness between Spirit & Body, it requires input from the senses to make a sensible connection. Most people who THINK they are 'Spiritual' really are quite confused about what it all really means, so I often play devil's advocate or antagonist to get certain points across.
@evman5000 "Rationalization is a Mental process, not Spiritual" Really. How do you know that the spiritual can have no input? Because you have not experienced it? Most people who recognize the spiritual sense are quite able to think about (rationalization) what they know through that sense. Maybe they are seeing colors you can't see.
@campdon Again, campdon, if 'most' people believe it...you can be sure it's FUCKING WRONG!!! Why do u insist on attempting to validate your confused perspective by continuously invoking the agreement of others. If everyone on the planet, except one, agreed with you, that one person is quite likely to be correct & everyone else wrong...it is a pattern of human behavior. The masses are FOOLS; I suggest u stop participating in group thinking and think for yourself. continued in next post...
@evman5000 "The masses are FOOLS" Surely you know that such a conviction is either megalomania or insanity. In fact, it is the distinguishing mark of both.
Of course, it is possible that one person is right and all others are fools. But to make that an absolute truth takes you beyond the place where conversation is even possible. You are the only one who knows the truth: so what is the use of discussion?
@campdon Really? I'm sorry you know so little about history. Do some studying...the masses have ALWAYS been problematic for themselves and everyone else. It has ALWAYS been the few who break from the 'norm' who have made ALL of the discoveries, breakthroughs & contributions that advanced & helped mankind. A majority of the population is convinced that there is a magic man who is watching over them...with ZERO evidence & innumerable contradictions to observation...YES...they are nuts! GET IT?!
@campdon 'Spirit' is a concept invented by the mind of a human to explain the force that animates life. It is an idea, not a direct observation. Therefore, while it may or may not be an actual phenomenon, there is not much to go on other than pure speculation. And, lo and behold, speculation is yet another mental process! In the end, I would argue that 'Spiritual' & 'Physical' are illusory states of mind...all is CONSCIOUSNESS! Unfortunately, most of it is caught up in its own manifestation!
@evman5000 If you mean that consciousness is the only reality (not a new idea, btw), that too is insanity, or leads to it. It makes you the center of your own little universe in which everything else is only the toys you play with in your mind.
So why play with this idea of God? God is only an idea of your mind. You are not dialoguing with a real me. I am only a toy of your mind. In which case, it might be more entertaining (and entertainment is the only point) to go fishing.
@campdon I really don't know what you are babbling here. Who gives a shit if the idea is new or not? Clearly, you have little comprehension of what matters in the realm of epistemology & debate. Call me crazy, but I gain my understanding thru unbiased consideration of observable phenomena & the presentation of credible facts and logical propositions. All that fact, validity & proof stuff. I know...I'm a fucking nut, right?! What do I have to do to be as smart as you guys who just believe things?
@evman5000 "just believe things" Why do you think that we just believe things? There is an incredible amount of evidence including observable phenomena, logical propositions and facts in support of what Christians believe. If you haven't discovered that it has to be because you prefer not to look or you've made up your mind on the basis of opinion of others.
Sorry if I did not understand what you meant by "IT'S ALL CONSCIOUSNESS." You'll have to explain in more detail.
@campdon Where is even ONE shred of 'evidence' you pretend exists, let alone 'an incredible amount'? Sorry, you are wrong, there is ZERO evidence supporting the man-god Jesus story. Even if they found evidence, it would make FAR more sense that he (and other historical figures for that matter) was an ET with advanced technology. 'Logical proposition'? Uh, Christian arguments are ENTIRELY illogical...that's why intelligent people have such a problem with them. 'Facts'? Christians dismiss facts!!!
@evman5000 So are you interested in exploring the evidence? If so, let's begin with identifying what evidence we might reasonably expect to find. Beginning with the actual existence of the man Jesus, what evidence would you accept as sufficient ?
ET is a more reasonable proposition? Is there any evidence for ETs? Could you present that? It might help in the question about Jesus.
@campdon To expound upon the 'all consciousness' idea...quantum physics has demonstrated, beyond a doubt, that ALL phenomena (material or energetic), on a microcosmic scale, respond to an observer simply observing them. This implies some degree of awareness innate to ALL phenomena that enables them to 'know' they are being observed. Either that, or the observer is making the phenomena what it is when he/she observes it. Seems to make more sense that Consciousness itself is the essential fabric!
@evman5000 Interesting. It seems like you are willing to make huge jumps in reasoning on rather meager scientific evidence. But I'm interested. There are a lot of mysteries in the universe. Could you point me to a qualified source who discusses the idea?
But even so, I don't understand what it would have to do with the question about God. Connect it for me,please.
@campdon Really? What 'jump' did I make? Meaningless assessment. Allow me to help your confusion. You see, there are THOUSANDS of witnesses, who are alive today, who have corroborating testimony that would hold up in EVERY court of law; there are hundreds of films, videos & pics, that I can ACTUALLY see, of which at least 5% are legit; quantum physics is the BASIS for modern science & results are observable & repeatable...TRY to show me ONE piece of clear evidence that shows Jesus even existed!
@evman5000 Quantum physics is legit. It is your conclusion that what we observe about quantum particles proves that there is a universal consciousness that is "innate to all phenomena." I can find a lot of info on quantum physics. But please point me to a qualified source that has come to the conclusion that you have.
I am still interested in how that fact, even if it was shown to be true, would impact the larger discussion we've been having.
@evman5000 So you'd like to start with the existence of Jesus. Since this is a question that is purely historical, we should use the same criteria as we would for any question about history. So here are several of the things historians examine. Artifacts. Are there any artifacts that can be linked to this person? Contemporary witnesses. Is there anyone who saw him? Effects. No one lives without making some impact on their world. Are there effects that point to the existence of Jesus?
@campdon If we followed your line of reasoning we would be forced to accept that there exists gods residing on Mt. Olympus, that many armed deities interacted with mankind, that a dragon created japan & birthed all of its people...See the problem with all this? In the end, such tales, myths, legends...whatever you want to call them, can have a basis in reality ONLY if they are referring to extra-terrestrial beings. That is the MOST logical explanation at this point in time, with what we know!
@evman5000 The only reason for going with aliens is that they would be within the realm of the natural world. But why limit the possibilities?
Perhaps the Greeks were right about the basic thing here. Perhaps there is a supernatural.
And why would only the natural be real? You see, you are making an assumption that ONLY something in the natural world is real. But on what basis are you making that claim? What if the supernatural actually interacts with the natural? Would that be real?
@evman5000 May I suggest reading the page by Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Independent Confirmation and the Historicity of Jesus (1997)." It is on infidels dot org. It frames the discussion and provides some criteria for examining the evidence. I wonder after reading whether we could go on to a more controversial question.
@campdon OK, he provided a somewhat satisfactory criteria for authenticating ancient writings...still just his opinion. Further, he directly dismisses all fantastic claims attributed to Jesus, showing the unreliability of such information, regardless of whether it is even fair to accept the claim of his existence...so using this source only hurts your cause to pretend that there is ANY evidence of the man-god claims whatsoever!
@evman5000 Sounds like you're not ready to accept the historicity of Jesus. But let's go ahead with the next step. Was Jesus more than a mere man?
If he was, then we'd have to look at your idea that he was perhaps an alien. Or was he God who showed up in history? That's what his followers claimed. Wow! Now that would be remarkable. God putting himself on display so that we could put him to the test.
@campdon "Sounds like you're not ready to accept the historicity of Jesus." Ready? Uh, I'll be 'ready' when there actually is meaningful evidence to consider. Until then, no, I won't jump on the wishful-thinking bandwagon with you. "Was Jesus more than a mere man?" Answer: I don't know & neither do you! Likely, he was, or he was an ET. And what exactly is 'mere' supposed to mean? Apparently, you little concept of the true nature & potential of man!
@evman5000 Unfortunately, YT doesn't place the comments by the original comment, so I am losing track of the conversation when we make multiple posts.
"Mere" was not meant to demean human beings. I have an extremely high view of man. He is created in God's image. He has dignity and nobility and incredible ability. He is also broken and seriously self-occupied to the point of selfishness. Put hose together and you have potential that isn't often realized.
@campdon Except for the assumption that "He is created in God's image.", I agree with all of this 100%!!! That's the shame of it all...phenomena wasted potential! It is, unfortunately, more effective to ridicule people for their foolishness than to appeal to their potential genius - which is all but completely shut off in most people!
@campdon And who cares what 'would be' remarkable?! It would be remarkable if Krishna was a real many-armed Blue God that protected humans long ago...It would be remarkable if Santa Claus really flew around the world in a sleigh delivering gifts...What's your point? Remarkable hypotheticals of what would have been amazing events in no way establishes ACTUAL reality & history. What kind of logic are you trying to employ here?
@evman5000 So here's an example of a credible source: "Quantum approaches to Consciousness" on Stanford University website. It does not address the precise question before us, but it is interesting to note that an absolute connection between quantum activity and human consciousness cannot even be demonstrated.
@campdon May I suggest watching w w w(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=s42mrdhKwRA. Your few sources are certainly NOT the ultimate authority! In case it doesn't display properly, YouTube "Amit Goswami, Quantum Physics & Consciousness". There you go...just one of MANY qualified sources that you seem to have such difficulty finding in your ever-so-thorough searching! Took me about 3 minutes to find it! C'mon, Man, you are sharp...try not to be typical in your preference for information!
@evman5000 Well , Dr. Goswami is interesting. But since he believes that the spirit is areal part of human nature, I'm a little curious about what you think about that. Isn't that a bit contrary to what you have argued here?
@campdon Spirit is the underlying intelligence of the universe, the force that animates all living creatures. Does it have its own personality? Maybe. Did it ever manifest as an incarnate human? The Hindus certainly think so, they're called Avatars, of which they include Jesus. But how is such a thing determined? And what is the point to believing more in one historical figure than another? Do you accept Sai Baba as a divine incarnation? He's alive and claims to be God...prove he isn't!
@evman5000 I ewpost your comment of a couple of weeks ago: "Spirit' is a concept invented by the mind of a human to explain the force that animates life. It is an idea,"
It is part about spirit being an idea that puzzles me in view of your reference to Goswami. I don't understand that he thinks of consciousness as an "idea." It sounds in places like he regards it is the one true reality. And I would agree with that, though not with all of he extrapolates from that.
@campdon Does this help?..."Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” -Einstein You see...it's ALL 'states of MIND'...CONSCIOUSNESS observing & interacting with Consciousness...much of it caught up in the delusions of its many mis-perceptions...at lower levels, anyway!
@evman5000 "prove he isn't!" As you know, it isn't possible to prove he is not god. But that is not the question. It is is Jesus God. As far as proof is concerned, I am not interested in arguing proofs. He does present evidence, however. That is the resurrection.
Dead people do not come back to life. Is that a fair conclusion? So if some one does come back to life, that does at least get your attention. Well, that is the claim of those who would be the ones who would know.
@campdon Uhhh...'evidence'???...WHAT EVIDENCE?...someone's STORY or CLAIM such a thing happened? Again, the criteria you apply would have us believe EVERY fantastic thing ever written in ancient times...utter FOOLISHNESS! There are MANY such claims (yes, resurrection included, contrary to what HIGHLY un-knowledgeable Christians believe) in MANY ancient systems! How is it the ONE you are familiar with is the definitively correct one?...Because YOU believe it? You don't even know its origin!
@evman5000 Gnere. That is the key to understanding literature. The ancient stories of resurrections (which I have read) are myth. The people in the stories are not historical people. The myths give expression to the annual cycles of death and rebirth.
The story of Jesus is not myth. Jesus was a historical person. It takes occurs at a time and place accessible to historical examination. It is documented by real people as well as we could expect given the time and place.
@campdon Wrong again, campdon! The commonly propogated history of those times is FAR better documented & verifiable than anything from the NT. I really don't know what you expect to accomplish by arguing complete fallacies?! How many sources are there? To what time do they carbon date? How were they handled by persons of varying intention thru time, compare & contrast to other writings discovered, corroberated by other sources? Forgive me for doubting that u have ever even done due diligence!
@evman5000 Remember, the question is a purely historical question: Did Jesus rise from the dead after being crucified, and buried for three days. Since artifacts of the resurrection are unexpected, that leaves contemporary witnesses and effects.
Probably the earliest written testimony to the resurrection is Paul letter, I Corinthians. There is no real dispute as to the authenticity of the letter. It was written less than 20 yrs after the event in question.
@campdon Paul doesn't claim to have been an eyewitness, though he does say he saw the risen Jesus some time later. What he does say is that he knew eye witnesses. Peter was one. But there were many others, 500 including the Apostles, in fact. Many of those were living at the date of Paul's writing. If Paul's statements about the resurrection were false, they could easily have spoken up. But there is not record of any rebuttal.
@campdon Campdon, C'MON?!...Why do believers distort facts & logic so much to validate the ludicrous? First, the oldest carbon date is 70 A.D. so your '20yrs after' remark is made-up. That would place it around 40yrs after at best...big difference when trying to claim direct observation. Second, even if the letter was legit & the people really claimed such witness...WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT PROVE? Do you believe every claim from supposed witnesses of miracles in Hindu, Buddhist or Pagan cultures?
@evman5000 "carbon date" You are being generous (thank you) or misleading. We have no original documents to carbon date. The oldest fragment of a manuscript, a copy of the book of John, is dated by the style of script, paleogrphic evidence, to the mid- second century.
But you miss my point. From a purely historical point of view, witnesses writing close to the event both in date and location are are more credible than writings much later. Paul's writings qualify.
@evman5000 Equally important is the embedded creed or hymn in chap. 15. Historians agree that this predated Paul's letter,placing that confession of the resurrection to easily only 10 years after the event. So if you want contemporary written testimony, there it is.
But then there is the effect. The people who would have known had Jesus not risen from the dead were the Apostles. Yet they not only believed and preached it, but died because of that conviction. Why if not true?
@campdon Oh man, your arguments are weak! I'll answer your question with a question...Why, during the Vietnam War, did Buddhist monks CHOOSE to light themselves on fire, and burn to death in meditation, in front of embassies as a demonstration of selfless sacrifice to make a statement to humanity about the atrocities of war? I HAVE SEEN THAT WITH MY OWN TWO EYES! Look it up! That is a REAL miracle, that someone could be so strong & selfless! And they accept NO absolute god of ANY kind! Wake up!
@evman5000 Really. You were in Vietnam? Your profile says you are 35 yrs old. If you were in Vietnam then, it had to be as a very young child. Or are you lying?
I do not doubt the commitment of martyrs to their cause. But in the case of the Apostles, it is different. They knew whether Jesus had risen from the dead or not. To die for a false claim is insanity. Unless you are willing to make that charge of all those who would have firsthand knowledge, their testimony is credible.
@campdon It AMAZES me that believers of this nonsense do every thing they can to use SCIENTIFIC METHOD to substantiate their points, only to deny all other OVERWHELMING scientific evidence against it all! What is that? It is the mark of true delusion, I'm afraid! Please stop and consider it well. You cannot pick & choose which 'facts' you like and claim them as having anything to do with anyone else's reality in an way whatsoever! I have researched well...I found ZERO credibility in this myth!
@evman5000 But why reject the value of the NT documents? Many are dated to within 20-40 years of the events. They have all the marks of simple straight forward description. References to externally verified historical events and places are everywhere. Plus there are other documents that corroborate the testimony of the NT written equally early. The Didache for example. If they were reports about a Roman official's life, we would not question their value.
@campdon Campdon, PLEASE?! Why reject the value of the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Dhammapada, the Tripakata, the I-Ching, the Tao te Ching, the Qabalah, the Popuh Vul, the Sumerian tablets, the code of Hammurabi, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, etc....Oh I'm sure you've researched all of these sources of ancient knowledge and scrutinized them appropriately to discern their meaning and value, RIGHT??? I enjoy intelligent debate, but NOT HYPOCRISY!
@evman5000 Isn't this a diversion? Wasn't the question at hand the simple historicity of the resurrection, not comparative religions.
If I were not convinced of the actuality of the resurrection, I might be inclined to explore the religious ideas of men. But that is, if fact, all they claim to be - men's ideas and philosophy. If Jesus rose from the dead, there is a more authoritative voice to be heard, his. So shall we tackle that question first?
@campdon Not at all! What did I say that would possibly contradict this view? I have been challenging claims of specificity that do not seem to conform which reality as I experience it. Denying the veracity of the story of the god-man Jesus in no way is a denial of Spiritual reality & truth.
@evman5000 "consciousness creates the manifest world." I kind of like this. But Dr, Goswani is a little late in discovering it. It reminds me of an old text: "In the beginning God."
@evman5000 Actually, evman, you are not as spiritually blind as the analogy would suggest. No one is. The spiritual sense is something we all have. The spiritual sense is what enables us to apprehend the essence of things. The video and song is about that ability to apprehend the reality behind the creation. It is also what art is all about. Good art captures the essence of things and is a rationalization of what we understand in our spirit. The same is true of music.
@campdon Now this I can agree with...well-put! Let me just add that, IMHO, 'Spirit' is a term we apply to refer to essence consciousness while 'Mind' is active consciousness. No matter how u slice it...IT'S ALL CONSCIOUSNESS!!! Btw, quantum physics has basically proven this.
absolutely beautiful. Thanks for taking the time to link up the video clips to the appropriate part of the song. I might have to watch this video every morning while the birds are singing their praise to the Most High.
@spazzcopter - It's a real shame that you haven't experienced the awesomeness of the great God, who is the Architect of the Universes, nor have you experienced the gentleness of his Hand in your life. Why? Because you push him away. Just by what you say... it's obvious you don't want Him in your life. He doesn't dwell where He's not welcome. One day you will wake up! (Hope that it's sooner than later). One day God will call you before His Council. Is your name written in HIs Book of LIfe?
@nSTERE0 So let me get this straight...God is omnipresent (everywhere present), right?...Then how does God ONLY dwell where he is welcome, huh? Didn't really think that one thru too well, did ya, dummy? Grow up past your silly FEELINGS, and start working that 8 lbs. (or, in your case, more like 3 lbs.) of fatty tissue between your ears called a BRAIN...you know, that mechanism that allows a faith-blinded moron, like yourself, to mangle language & perpetuate NONSENSE! RE-JOIN REALITY NUTCASE!
I watched the images on this video and felt a stirring joy and pride, as any human should, but I had to turn the music off after a minute because I felt insulted by the arrogance of it.
I don't get why anyone could look at the amazing, terrifying beauty and complexity of the natural world and pass it all off as "god did it."
Honestly, how can anyone believe that the universe we live in could possibly have been made in its entirety by any one person, let alone by a selfish, bratty child of a god?
Anyone with the Karaoke version of this song, could you, as a favor, upload it? We're the Song Warriors (3 gals and 2 guys) of Christian Family Tabernacle who'd like to sing this song at our church on our anniversary late this year. We only perform 4 times a year as a special tribute to the Lord. Thank you.
This song is a prayer in itself.... a prayer of grattitude for the Mother Earth , our planetary home, a gift from the Universal Mind, Who designs and manifests this complex and vast cosmos .... a cosmos too much complex in patterns, mathematics,geometry...too much level of a High Inteliigence requiered to be somthing that ramdonly has been evolved out of the blue...
Ah yes, the beauty of the natural world. Who'd want to invent superstitious, vacuous beliefs about magical gods, jesuses and mohammeds when we have THIS beautiful world?
What a beautiful video and song. It made me feel so tiny in the scheme of things, and yet so thoroughly blessed. God is truly great. Thankyou for uploading this.
Christianity : The belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever, if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity, because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Makes perfect sense.
Sorry, but it does explain, albeit comically, why I'm an atheist.
And I agree that you can't identify WHO the designer is very well with science, just like you can't identify WHO a painter is or WHO the inventor of an idea is or WHO wrote the Rosetta stone by science. To get the answer to these types of questions, you usually need to go and use the historical method, although science can confirm some things about the WHO if the WHO has made statements or predictions or done actions, etc. that are testable by science.
This song is so beautiful that I was moved to freely translated it into Spanish, as a collaboration, so Spanish speaking people could enjoy it too.. see translation in the 2 boxes below......
Traducción libre al español (Cont.) Amo llegar a la costa y sentir el bramido de las olas, caminar a través de campos de grano dorado interminables en horizontes sin fin.Escuchando el rumor de un rio correr regando la tierra, la fragancia de una rosa en flor,el llanto de un recién nacido…Yo creo…Yo creo como un niño cree…
He sentido el soplo del viento murmurando Tu Nombre, he visto tus lágrimas al ver la lluvia caer. Cómo podría decir que Dios no existe cuando toda la creación le invoca? Un ave que canta,un majestuoso árbol,la va ...sta inmensidad del mar abierto...viendo los pajaros volar, bajo las estrellas,ahí siento Tu Presencia....Ver más
@myelectroncloud -- Yes, the evidence IS all around you, but If you want a scientific approach be my guest. I wont explain everything now, but let me tell you, Carbon dating, Geologic column and well... accepted science is wrong. If you check your facts and your sources (ie charles darwin) YOu will see that there is nothing else. True science PROVES GOD, even charles darwin admits that.
@Chalisevanwyngaardt Beauty is one evidence true...esp. the symmetry in nature...but see the links below for a lot more comprehensive evidence from 3 of the best videos defending creation science that I have seen, esp. watch the whole series from Dr. Veith, the Genesis Conflict, starting with the Genes of Genesis one.
@dotoree Iv'e said it before, and I'll say it again. "The fact that something exists does not determine what created it." A flower is beautiful, and it exists, but that alone IS NOT EVIDENCE of God.
The rival of Darwinian evolution is creationist natural selection published long before Darwin's book by creationists such as Blyth) which includes speciation from the species to about the family level. Darwin's difference from prior creation science is that he postulates that speciation can go WAY past the family level to even astoundingly the kingdom level. We have MANY observable cases for creationist speciation & none for Darwin's levels of evolution that differ from creation science.
@myelectroncloud If you'd learned about evolution first, then God would not be required.
-
Do you realize that evolution and the creation event are not rival theories? Evolution deals with how species change. The creation event deals with how life originated. The rival theory to the creation event is abiogenesis. ALL the testable evidence we have shows that life always comes from other life...the law of biogenesis, supporting creation. Abiogenesis is not testable, thus not scientific.
@myelectroncloud Nobody was born atheist or religious. ALL thoughts on all sides were taught to us. Please stop making false claims. I've questioned my religious, cultural, political and national beliefs a HUGE amount and changed some.
Design IS most certainly a compelling evidence of a Designer. It's more of a logical evidence, but also testable since comparable complexity to life has seldom if EVER been observed to arise by chance. The weight of evidence is solidly on the Design side there.
@dotoree Oh please. An atheist cannot claim anything unless a theist claims it first. You cannot be taught atheism unless you knew of theism in the first place. Atheism exists as a rejection of theism, and cannot exist in its own right. I cannot claim there is no God, unless I knew of God in the first place. Ergo, it is you that made the claim it was God, not I that said it wasn't.
@myelectroncloud The only end of atheism and evolution is your death and the death of everyone. They have not helped in the progress of science at all. The only progress has come from creationist levels of speciation. NOTHING practical or hard science has come from Darwinian levels. It has wasted oodles of money, sent us down many false roads (vestigial organs, junkDNA and others), and caused America to lose it's cutting edge in science. Why reject evidence in order to die?
When emotions and bias aren't involved, rational scientists give up even dearly held speculations and follow evidence where it leads. But, most atheists have emotional reasons for not wanting to believe in God, some due to dire misunderstandings of who He is (sometimes this has been due to Christians putting traditions over the Bible and falsely misrepresenting him) and also dire misrepresentation of the mountains of evidence from many fields that support an intelligent creator.
@myelectroncloud You probably are unaware that for ~2 millenia atheism has been the aggressive rejection that gods exist and it has made very specific claims. The evidence was far better to support atheism in the past when spontaneous generation and abiogenesis were accepted by academia. Pasteur experiments proved both to be pseudoscience. It's only because these have failed scientifically that atheists have diluted their claims to "lack of belief", which is not a scientific position.
@myelectroncloud Linguistically in the Greek and historically, atheism is NOT just "lacking belief". It's not that even these days. Atheists are intentionally and virulently skeptical and NO ONE is born skeptical. In addition atheism is actively trying to be a rival to religion. To RATIONALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY do that instead of just by emotion and accusations, it must provide BETTER evidence than what it criticizes.
@myelectroncloud ANYONE can lack belief in ANYTHING. EX: I lack belief atheism is correct. I lack belief in evolution. Heck, I lack belief you exist ;). If I deny any evidence apriori that disagrees with my lack of belief, there's nothing you can do to prove any of the above..and this pseudoscience is precisely what atheists do all the time..they say they lack belief and then deny all existing evidence instead of doing what normal science does..and that is FOLLOW THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. .
@dotoree ...BUT THERE IS NO WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE! Atheism COULD NOT have existed before theism, because we did not know of God. God was introduced into society by humans, through lack of knowledge. I'm sorry, but your comments are exactly the reason I left this Tube; you claim evidence but offer none. Don't misunderstand me, I hold you in high regard, as I have others, but we need to cut to the chase, and proceed one step at a time:
"Most of God's claims are fully testable." Name one.
@myelectroncloud I'm sorry, but there is astounding weight of evidence. Biogenesis alone has billions of testable evidences where abiogenesis has NONE, ZERO, ZIPPO. Same with creationist natural selection vs. Darwinian levels of evolution. The list goes on&on. Not only that, evolution directly hinders science. In the case of vestigial organs and junkDNA and others, it told us these were useless and delayed investigation. Now we've found they are VERY important. Creation prediction confirmed.
Biogenesis is a claim of the Bible and creation science, creationist natural selection fits within genesis claims. The Bible lists many health principles that when followed add 10 years to life more than the average THESE DAYS...I've sent you some evidence in a PM and that's only a minute part of what I have.
I NEVER claim evidence but offer none...but I'm EXTREMELY busy with a host of deadlines now..shouldn't even be commenting now...so just wait a bit and I'll provide FAR FAR more documentation than you could ever read. I have literally 1000s of pages of evidence as well as links to MUCH more than that.
@dotoree I don't want thousands; just one. Show me one piece of evidence where God was responsible. You can pick any one thing that God is said to have done. What I want , is for you to say to me, "God did this by..." and then explain the evidence. Let's keep it simple by picking just the one thing.
@myelectroncloud OK...but first how about you meet your own standard first since consistent standards are so crucial in in comparing rival theories fairly. Show how non-intelligence could produce life from non-life or show me that speciation can cause Darwinian levels of evolution (at least past the family level). I can provide a number of evidences using both the scientific and historical method. But, first I want to see if you can meet your own standard.
@dotoree And remember you asked me to SHOW you..that means OBSERVABLE evidence...not speculative evidence that can be explained in many ways...or at least evidence that pretty much rules out any other idea we know of and is solidly testable. Observable evidence is best by far...but for both views that not always available.
@dotoree I can't. And before you go off on triumphant salutations to yourself, I never made the claim that I could. Nor did I suggest any standard for myself to meet. It was you that made the claim it was God, not I that said it wasn't. I'm not trying to get you to renounce your faith, but I am trying to get you reach a goal. I did it once before with great success on someone of equal standing as yourself. I can't tell you what it is; you have to get there yourself for it to mean anything.
@myelectroncloud If you make no claim and have no evidence you are not doing anything scientific. As soon as anyone provides even a shred of evidence, they win almost by default over that kind of position.
I love learning...sometimes I learn from kids (have learned even from 7 and 9 year olds) even though I'm a professor. The Bible says that intelligent people are always learning. I agree. I will try to get back to you as soon as possible, but have a major conference presentation in 2 days.
@dotoree Hmm. If I could explain life from non-life I would be unique. I would quote the Miller-Urey experiment, but that's not conclusive in the evolution of humans. Something's missing, and while this experiment is a positive step in the right direction, if you replace the the missing "something" with God, then all you've done is create another mystery. As an atheist, I make no claims to produce evidence AGAINST God, I merely argue the evidence FOR God. Of which there is none. Back in 2 days.
@myelectroncloud God is not at all 100% mystery. He has revealed an enormous amount about himself in different ways. I'm about to leave on the train to the conference...but could you let me know what you would consider evidence, remembering that ANY view that claims to be scientific or rational MUST be based on at least some evidence&hopefully some strong evidence. Remember also that refusing to decide is itself a decision, sort of like refusing to escape when a fire has started in your house.
@myelectroncloud Had a great conference, room was packed for my presentation, standing room only! Am now back...still a lot to do, but 1 less thing on my plate at least :). I'm waiting for your answer...did you not see the question? I'm also interested in what you think you can teach me, but first there must be some consistent standards...without that, there's no point in discussing things and little if any chance of genuine progress in knowledge in any field.
@dotoree Um, somewhere along the line, this debate has gone from me asking you, to you asking me. I did see your comment, but as previously discussed, it was I that asked the first question to your claims of evidence. I reiterate; I make no claims about the non-existence of God. It is you that claims there is one, and offers evidence to support it. I'm here merely to challenge whatever you come with. Pick one piece of evidence at a time. That way we won't get carried away.
Before any discussion or debate, some basics and common ground must be established, otherwise discussion is pretty much pointless. I could present something that is accepted as evidence by millions including many academics from many perspectives, but you might be someone who says that anything that disagrees with your opinion isn't evidence..and then I'm just wasting my time. You need to explain at least a BIT what you think counts as evidence and a CONSISTENT standard of evidence.
@dotoree Agreed. I will endeavour, wherever possible, to not simply disagree using my opinion alone. I will always try to offer an explanation for my opinion, and you must do the same. Whilst neither of us are likely to change our respective beliefs, I hope, even in a small way, that it helps us to see why the other thinks the way they do.
1)The scientific method.Observable evidence is strongest.Predictions are good, but wrong ideas sometimes make accurate predictions too,so this is weaker.
2)The historical method&witnesses.There are different levels of credibility. But,hostile witnesses&many witnesses from many views agreeing on what they've seen is highly credible&is the foundation for most historical knowledge& is evidence in court.
@dotoree Number 3 is a sticky one, as logic can be taken in two ways. A) Is it based on a persons perception of a thing, or B) is it based on a truth that everyone agrees on?
1 and 2 lead me to two questions: With regard to witnesses, this would depend on what they saw and was it actually possible? In which case refer to No.3 As for the scientific method, I would need to know your definition of "observable" Observation can be made through one or more of our five senses-this is all we have.
@myelectroncloud What people think is possible is based on their opinion and biases in many cases. Many times in history, the establishments thought that things witnesses saw were impossible, like that gorillas, pandas, komodo dragons and many others. Time has proved the credible witnesses correct and the establishment wrong. Same with heavier than air flight, space travel and a host of other things. Observable would be with the 5 senses yes.
@dotoree So, would you agree then, that this observable evidence could be considered factual? And if so, does it not then follow, that any supposition based on a witnesses account of what they saw, cannot be evidence, since you did not glean this evidence through observation. Although you heard the words the witness spoke, you have no basis for comparison to determine wether or not they spoke the truth.
@myelectroncloud When there are several alternatives, logic is not so helpful. It's then more of a weaker evidence because it can sometimes be based on people's opinions and biases. But, when there are only 2 options and you rule out one, it's pretty strong...or when logic rules out most competitors and leaves one, it's better. But, it can sometimes be based on opinion. I would say that logic is seldom conclusive...but it can be one piece of evidence or point towards good tests of evidence.
This has been flagged as spam show
For those who disagree with the idea of one Creator - God...in all grace and humility, would ask you to provide a really plausible argument for anything else...considering the overwhelming evidence otherwise - (ie: creation itself). Why should I buy the idea of atoms banging around for a trillion years creates you and I, and the complexity of us - and who made the atoms, btw? Go beyond matter...how would you then account for thought, reason, our emotions of love, etc? Just wondering...
ichthusMe 1 week ago
Comment removed
ichthusMe 1 week ago
You know what? All of you shut the door! If you are muslim, christian or whatever, or you believe in science, you certainly have a reason. So believe in whatever you want, but do not try to feed the others woth your belief. That's all from me. I am protestant and a friend of mine is a muslim.
Coldcman 2 weeks ago
How can 15 people dislike this?
MrSlippin22 3 weeks ago
So, does not the created come from a Creator? If not, how then?, as everything we know has a creator? Right!?
ichthusMe 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
ichthusMe 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
ichthusMe 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
ichthusMe 1 month ago
Comment removed
ichthusMe 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
ichthusMe 1 month ago
Comment removed
ichthusMe 1 month ago
Unbelievable!!! The day I ran into this video is beyond unbelievable!!! It's miraculous!!! January 17, 2012
snkypwrfn 1 month ago
Father, forgive them, they don't know what they are saying or doing.
marischa771 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Beautiful video. Blessings that 2012 brings you happiness, good health, friendship, love and peace ♥
DreamChemistryMusic 2 months ago
vaxiawval +1
I don't like calling people idiots, but this bullshit video-propaganda pisses me off.
skewCZ 2 months ago
@skewCZ Yeah it's ridiculous. How about showing images of people being stoned to death for stupid reasons, like this supposed god says to do.
ivanlagrossemoule 1 month ago
@ivanlagrossemoule
Well i don't actually care about that - not when it comes to deciding whether there is a God or not.
"how could i say there is no god when all around creation calls".
That song is simply bullshit (and few minutes ago i learned proper name of the bullshit - Appeal to consequence, or perhaps to emotion).
And yet people use similar arguments in defense of God's existence. This is just one of many instances of that rotten-to-the-core pseudo-logic.
skewCZ 1 month ago
I always feel like I want to shed tears whenever I hear this song and I can see that human is nothing in front of this almighty Creator God . I can not say more Except "how great thou art oh lord ."
DanyaY93 2 months ago
Let everything that hath breath, Praise The Lord!!!!
stefanie1113 2 months ago
So beautiful Joy, thank you for this wonderful gift with this video creation show casing our earth paradise, one of God's precious creation, and the song is just perfect! A fav in every way. Very uplifting video of Nature in awesome glory... Love it, excellent and inspiring! Hugs, Gisl
gisltome 3 months ago
Nice video, but when I saw that he was religious, I was not until the end!
buffalosoldier19 3 months ago
WONDERFUL VIDEO AND SONG!
*****ALL THE STARS.
Bel.
bebelpequeno 3 months ago
man, you sound really angry. don't see any vulgar slamming of your position on religion or anything else. G_d always seems to cause a stir in those who say they could care less...............hmmmm!
MrThackermon 3 months ago
stop stealing nature to support crap idiot religious thinking, it's disgusting,
vaxiawval 3 months ago
one day every knee will bow, every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.............scientific or not!!!!
MrThackermon 3 months ago
absolutely beautiful expression of the awesomeness of God. How can you not feel the presence of the Almighty Creator when you view the beauty His hands have made. He is worthy of our praise and adoration.
Judy108 4 months ago
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20
"I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well"
Ps 139:14
JesuismyKing 6 months ago 2
Puff the Magic Dragon made a beautiful Universe, didn't he??? Disprove that, you silly 'believers'!
evman5000 7 months ago
@evman5000 God created the people who created Puff th Magic Dragon song, poem etc. You mock believers huh? Some people choose to ignore God ... some choose to KNOW Him. Every choice is free and has its consequences.
michaeldjoseph 7 months ago in playlist Christian
@michaeldjoseph Interesting, and completely unoriginal, claims. Now why don't you try to justify them by explaining exactly how you THINK you know that? And WHICH god...Brahma...Vishnu...Shiva...Zeus...Ahura Mazda...Atum...Ptah...Amun...Ra...Jupiter...Kukulkan...Quetzalcoatl...Jehovah...Yahweh...Ja...Jesus...Maitreya...Krishna...? I am sure you have done your DUE DILIGENCE & RESEARCH on these subjects...right? So you would know for sure, of course! Or do you have a...REALLY STRONG FEELING?
evman5000 7 months ago
@evman5000 Just watch the video and listen to the song dude! The fool said in his heart there is no God. Ha ha ha! The evidence is in your face and you still don't see it. You want to analyze it with your limited knowledge and old arguments! Did you think the world, creation, life and God is limited by your little knowledge of "RESEARCH" known to you. Ha ha ha! I can tell you life wa not created by atheists. Ha ha ha. When you die, tell them your story! HA HA HA!
coolstufftt 7 months ago
@coolstufftt HUH??? I don't know what all that dribble you typed was supposed to mean, but , NO, I was challenging YOUR CONCLUSIONS...silly Fool! Some atheists DO arrogantly presume the non-existence of a supreme consciousness...I happen to be quite certain THERE IS superior consciousness underlying Reality. However, IT IS NOT JESUS...or ALLAH...or ANY other PERSONALITY that you arrogantly LIMIT this 'Being' to! The ONLY way you know ANYTHING at all is because you EXPERIENCE THRU THE SENSES!
evman5000 7 months ago
@evman5000 One day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Hopefully before death. Too late will be the cry of so many. So you believe in " superior consciousness" and you say it is not a bunch of things ... with out proof, evidence, facts ... just based on your feelings and senses, the very thing you accuse believers of basing beliefs on. Think about it. Hmmm.
coolstufftt 7 months ago
@coolstufftt You're not very good with logic, are you? My (non-absolute) claim is based entirely on what I have observed in the external reality (Scientific Observation) & in the internal reality (MY Mind). Both realms of experience support my hypothesis. Neither, demonstrates ANYTHING that supports the Jesus myth! We can NOT prove what is experienced within; we can ONLY find correlation in the outer, shared reality! Hence, if you cannot corroborate your claims...they exist ONLY in your mind!
evman5000 7 months ago
@evman5000 You sound like a fool who got a small bit of knowledge and thought himself to be wise. I have a degree in math and logic. You need a contradiction to disprove a theory. Knowledge is still different from wisdom. Respect for God is the beginning of wisdom. I won't bother to reply to you further. It's not wise to argue with a fool.
coolstufftt 7 months ago
@coolstufftt Your attempt to condescendingly dismiss my position is a typical cop-out for someone who has met his intellectual-match! "Respect for God is the beginning of wisdom"...Really? Not according to the MAN-MADE dictionary! HOW DO YOU KNOW THE THINGS YOU PROCLAIM? You are the FOOL, my friend, who carelessly mangles language and violates its logical principles! Go debate with someone who agrees with you, DUMB ASS!
evman5000 7 months ago
@evman5000 "the only way you know...EXPERIENCE THRU THE SENSES." Think about that for just a momernt. All of history before your birth you know by acceptance of information passed on from others. You didn't experience it. Math is logic, not experience. Then too, there is the human spirit. Probably you would not recognize that as a "sense." But most of the world would disagree - not because they have been taught it, because they experience it. It is wise to think before you speak.
campdon 6 months ago
@campdon "All of history ..." So whats your point? Do you not see the relationship between the validity of historical accuracy and being closer to or further from the source and/or time frame? The further removed, the less reliable the information. And 'Logic' can only be known...THROUGH THE SENSES!!! I believe in Spirit...it's the force that animates living beings. But to give this ethereal force a limited human-like personality is just childish and an insult to intelligence & potential!!!
evman5000 5 months ago
@evman5000 I think you are misreading my post. I am simply saying that history is not known by personal experience or the senses. The same for logic -not known through experience. BUT some things are known through the senses. Whatever your definition of spirit is, most people in the world recognize that we have a spiritual sense and that it does inform us of things not known by other senses.
campdon 5 months ago
@campdon Correct, history CANNOT be known by personal experience, but it is only thru using the senses that we know whatever bits & pieces we do. Trying to discern what the senses perceive is challenging enough...attempting to rationalize a 'spiritual' sense of knowing is inherently self-contradictory. Therefore, any rationale based on non-sensual experience is null & void and might I add JUST PLAIN FOOLISH! As for 'most people'...shoot me in the head if I am ever caught thinking like them!
evman5000 5 months ago
@evman5000 "attempting to rationalize a 'spiritual' sense of knowing is inherently self-contradictory." OK tell me how it is self-contradicting.
"shoot me in the head if I am ever caught thinking like them!" OK. It is difficult to explain color to the blind.
The best I can do is say, lot's of people do see color. And by analogy, yellow is like warm; blue is like cool.
The spiritual sense is a way of knowing what is not known clearly by the other senses. Listen to them.
campdon 5 months ago
@campdon Relating colors to temperature would be useless in such conveyance to a blind person, so your metaphor is invalid. Rationalization is a Mental process, not Spiritual, hence, being the intermediary layer of consciousness between Spirit & Body, it requires input from the senses to make a sensible connection. Most people who THINK they are 'Spiritual' really are quite confused about what it all really means, so I often play devil's advocate or antagonist to get certain points across.
evman5000 5 months ago
@evman5000 "Rationalization is a Mental process, not Spiritual" Really. How do you know that the spiritual can have no input? Because you have not experienced it? Most people who recognize the spiritual sense are quite able to think about (rationalization) what they know through that sense. Maybe they are seeing colors you can't see.
campdon 5 months ago
@campdon Again, campdon, if 'most' people believe it...you can be sure it's FUCKING WRONG!!! Why do u insist on attempting to validate your confused perspective by continuously invoking the agreement of others. If everyone on the planet, except one, agreed with you, that one person is quite likely to be correct & everyone else wrong...it is a pattern of human behavior. The masses are FOOLS; I suggest u stop participating in group thinking and think for yourself. continued in next post...
evman5000 4 months ago
@evman5000 "The masses are FOOLS" Surely you know that such a conviction is either megalomania or insanity. In fact, it is the distinguishing mark of both.
Of course, it is possible that one person is right and all others are fools. But to make that an absolute truth takes you beyond the place where conversation is even possible. You are the only one who knows the truth: so what is the use of discussion?
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon Really? I'm sorry you know so little about history. Do some studying...the masses have ALWAYS been problematic for themselves and everyone else. It has ALWAYS been the few who break from the 'norm' who have made ALL of the discoveries, breakthroughs & contributions that advanced & helped mankind. A majority of the population is convinced that there is a magic man who is watching over them...with ZERO evidence & innumerable contradictions to observation...YES...they are nuts! GET IT?!
evman5000 4 months ago
@campdon 'Spirit' is a concept invented by the mind of a human to explain the force that animates life. It is an idea, not a direct observation. Therefore, while it may or may not be an actual phenomenon, there is not much to go on other than pure speculation. And, lo and behold, speculation is yet another mental process! In the end, I would argue that 'Spiritual' & 'Physical' are illusory states of mind...all is CONSCIOUSNESS! Unfortunately, most of it is caught up in its own manifestation!
evman5000 4 months ago
@evman5000 If you mean that consciousness is the only reality (not a new idea, btw), that too is insanity, or leads to it. It makes you the center of your own little universe in which everything else is only the toys you play with in your mind.
So why play with this idea of God? God is only an idea of your mind. You are not dialoguing with a real me. I am only a toy of your mind. In which case, it might be more entertaining (and entertainment is the only point) to go fishing.
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon I really don't know what you are babbling here. Who gives a shit if the idea is new or not? Clearly, you have little comprehension of what matters in the realm of epistemology & debate. Call me crazy, but I gain my understanding thru unbiased consideration of observable phenomena & the presentation of credible facts and logical propositions. All that fact, validity & proof stuff. I know...I'm a fucking nut, right?! What do I have to do to be as smart as you guys who just believe things?
evman5000 4 months ago
@evman5000 "just believe things" Why do you think that we just believe things? There is an incredible amount of evidence including observable phenomena, logical propositions and facts in support of what Christians believe. If you haven't discovered that it has to be because you prefer not to look or you've made up your mind on the basis of opinion of others.
Sorry if I did not understand what you meant by "IT'S ALL CONSCIOUSNESS." You'll have to explain in more detail.
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon Where is even ONE shred of 'evidence' you pretend exists, let alone 'an incredible amount'? Sorry, you are wrong, there is ZERO evidence supporting the man-god Jesus story. Even if they found evidence, it would make FAR more sense that he (and other historical figures for that matter) was an ET with advanced technology. 'Logical proposition'? Uh, Christian arguments are ENTIRELY illogical...that's why intelligent people have such a problem with them. 'Facts'? Christians dismiss facts!!!
evman5000 4 months ago
@evman5000 So are you interested in exploring the evidence? If so, let's begin with identifying what evidence we might reasonably expect to find. Beginning with the actual existence of the man Jesus, what evidence would you accept as sufficient ?
ET is a more reasonable proposition? Is there any evidence for ETs? Could you present that? It might help in the question about Jesus.
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon To expound upon the 'all consciousness' idea...quantum physics has demonstrated, beyond a doubt, that ALL phenomena (material or energetic), on a microcosmic scale, respond to an observer simply observing them. This implies some degree of awareness innate to ALL phenomena that enables them to 'know' they are being observed. Either that, or the observer is making the phenomena what it is when he/she observes it. Seems to make more sense that Consciousness itself is the essential fabric!
evman5000 4 months ago
@evman5000 Interesting. It seems like you are willing to make huge jumps in reasoning on rather meager scientific evidence. But I'm interested. There are a lot of mysteries in the universe. Could you point me to a qualified source who discusses the idea?
But even so, I don't understand what it would have to do with the question about God. Connect it for me,please.
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon Really? What 'jump' did I make? Meaningless assessment. Allow me to help your confusion. You see, there are THOUSANDS of witnesses, who are alive today, who have corroborating testimony that would hold up in EVERY court of law; there are hundreds of films, videos & pics, that I can ACTUALLY see, of which at least 5% are legit; quantum physics is the BASIS for modern science & results are observable & repeatable...TRY to show me ONE piece of clear evidence that shows Jesus even existed!
evman5000 4 months ago
@evman5000 Quantum physics is legit. It is your conclusion that what we observe about quantum particles proves that there is a universal consciousness that is "innate to all phenomena." I can find a lot of info on quantum physics. But please point me to a qualified source that has come to the conclusion that you have.
I am still interested in how that fact, even if it was shown to be true, would impact the larger discussion we've been having.
campdon 4 months ago
@evman5000 So you'd like to start with the existence of Jesus. Since this is a question that is purely historical, we should use the same criteria as we would for any question about history. So here are several of the things historians examine. Artifacts. Are there any artifacts that can be linked to this person? Contemporary witnesses. Is there anyone who saw him? Effects. No one lives without making some impact on their world. Are there effects that point to the existence of Jesus?
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon If we followed your line of reasoning we would be forced to accept that there exists gods residing on Mt. Olympus, that many armed deities interacted with mankind, that a dragon created japan & birthed all of its people...See the problem with all this? In the end, such tales, myths, legends...whatever you want to call them, can have a basis in reality ONLY if they are referring to extra-terrestrial beings. That is the MOST logical explanation at this point in time, with what we know!
evman5000 4 months ago
@evman5000 The only reason for going with aliens is that they would be within the realm of the natural world. But why limit the possibilities?
Perhaps the Greeks were right about the basic thing here. Perhaps there is a supernatural.
And why would only the natural be real? You see, you are making an assumption that ONLY something in the natural world is real. But on what basis are you making that claim? What if the supernatural actually interacts with the natural? Would that be real?
campdon 4 months ago
@evman5000 May I suggest reading the page by Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Independent Confirmation and the Historicity of Jesus (1997)." It is on infidels dot org. It frames the discussion and provides some criteria for examining the evidence. I wonder after reading whether we could go on to a more controversial question.
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon OK, he provided a somewhat satisfactory criteria for authenticating ancient writings...still just his opinion. Further, he directly dismisses all fantastic claims attributed to Jesus, showing the unreliability of such information, regardless of whether it is even fair to accept the claim of his existence...so using this source only hurts your cause to pretend that there is ANY evidence of the man-god claims whatsoever!
evman5000 4 months ago
@evman5000 Sounds like you're not ready to accept the historicity of Jesus. But let's go ahead with the next step. Was Jesus more than a mere man?
If he was, then we'd have to look at your idea that he was perhaps an alien. Or was he God who showed up in history? That's what his followers claimed. Wow! Now that would be remarkable. God putting himself on display so that we could put him to the test.
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon "Sounds like you're not ready to accept the historicity of Jesus." Ready? Uh, I'll be 'ready' when there actually is meaningful evidence to consider. Until then, no, I won't jump on the wishful-thinking bandwagon with you. "Was Jesus more than a mere man?" Answer: I don't know & neither do you! Likely, he was, or he was an ET. And what exactly is 'mere' supposed to mean? Apparently, you little concept of the true nature & potential of man!
evman5000 4 months ago
@evman5000 Unfortunately, YT doesn't place the comments by the original comment, so I am losing track of the conversation when we make multiple posts.
"Mere" was not meant to demean human beings. I have an extremely high view of man. He is created in God's image. He has dignity and nobility and incredible ability. He is also broken and seriously self-occupied to the point of selfishness. Put hose together and you have potential that isn't often realized.
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon Except for the assumption that "He is created in God's image.", I agree with all of this 100%!!! That's the shame of it all...phenomena wasted potential! It is, unfortunately, more effective to ridicule people for their foolishness than to appeal to their potential genius - which is all but completely shut off in most people!
evman5000 4 months ago
@campdon And who cares what 'would be' remarkable?! It would be remarkable if Krishna was a real many-armed Blue God that protected humans long ago...It would be remarkable if Santa Claus really flew around the world in a sleigh delivering gifts...What's your point? Remarkable hypotheticals of what would have been amazing events in no way establishes ACTUAL reality & history. What kind of logic are you trying to employ here?
evman5000 4 months ago
@evman5000 So here's an example of a credible source: "Quantum approaches to Consciousness" on Stanford University website. It does not address the precise question before us, but it is interesting to note that an absolute connection between quantum activity and human consciousness cannot even be demonstrated.
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon May I suggest watching w w w(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=s42mrdhKwRA. Your few sources are certainly NOT the ultimate authority! In case it doesn't display properly, YouTube "Amit Goswami, Quantum Physics & Consciousness". There you go...just one of MANY qualified sources that you seem to have such difficulty finding in your ever-so-thorough searching! Took me about 3 minutes to find it! C'mon, Man, you are sharp...try not to be typical in your preference for information!
evman5000 4 months ago
@evman5000 Well , Dr. Goswami is interesting. But since he believes that the spirit is areal part of human nature, I'm a little curious about what you think about that. Isn't that a bit contrary to what you have argued here?
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon Spirit is the underlying intelligence of the universe, the force that animates all living creatures. Does it have its own personality? Maybe. Did it ever manifest as an incarnate human? The Hindus certainly think so, they're called Avatars, of which they include Jesus. But how is such a thing determined? And what is the point to believing more in one historical figure than another? Do you accept Sai Baba as a divine incarnation? He's alive and claims to be God...prove he isn't!
evman5000 4 months ago
@evman5000 I ewpost your comment of a couple of weeks ago: "Spirit' is a concept invented by the mind of a human to explain the force that animates life. It is an idea,"
It is part about spirit being an idea that puzzles me in view of your reference to Goswami. I don't understand that he thinks of consciousness as an "idea." It sounds in places like he regards it is the one true reality. And I would agree with that, though not with all of he extrapolates from that.
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon Does this help?..."Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” -Einstein You see...it's ALL 'states of MIND'...CONSCIOUSNESS observing & interacting with Consciousness...much of it caught up in the delusions of its many mis-perceptions...at lower levels, anyway!
evman5000 4 months ago
@evman5000 "prove he isn't!" As you know, it isn't possible to prove he is not god. But that is not the question. It is is Jesus God. As far as proof is concerned, I am not interested in arguing proofs. He does present evidence, however. That is the resurrection.
Dead people do not come back to life. Is that a fair conclusion? So if some one does come back to life, that does at least get your attention. Well, that is the claim of those who would be the ones who would know.
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon Uhhh...'evidence'???...WHAT EVIDENCE?...someone's STORY or CLAIM such a thing happened? Again, the criteria you apply would have us believe EVERY fantastic thing ever written in ancient times...utter FOOLISHNESS! There are MANY such claims (yes, resurrection included, contrary to what HIGHLY un-knowledgeable Christians believe) in MANY ancient systems! How is it the ONE you are familiar with is the definitively correct one?...Because YOU believe it? You don't even know its origin!
evman5000 4 months ago
@evman5000 Gnere. That is the key to understanding literature. The ancient stories of resurrections (which I have read) are myth. The people in the stories are not historical people. The myths give expression to the annual cycles of death and rebirth.
The story of Jesus is not myth. Jesus was a historical person. It takes occurs at a time and place accessible to historical examination. It is documented by real people as well as we could expect given the time and place.
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon Wrong again, campdon! The commonly propogated history of those times is FAR better documented & verifiable than anything from the NT. I really don't know what you expect to accomplish by arguing complete fallacies?! How many sources are there? To what time do they carbon date? How were they handled by persons of varying intention thru time, compare & contrast to other writings discovered, corroberated by other sources? Forgive me for doubting that u have ever even done due diligence!
evman5000 4 months ago
@evman5000 Remember, the question is a purely historical question: Did Jesus rise from the dead after being crucified, and buried for three days. Since artifacts of the resurrection are unexpected, that leaves contemporary witnesses and effects.
Probably the earliest written testimony to the resurrection is Paul letter, I Corinthians. There is no real dispute as to the authenticity of the letter. It was written less than 20 yrs after the event in question.
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon Paul doesn't claim to have been an eyewitness, though he does say he saw the risen Jesus some time later. What he does say is that he knew eye witnesses. Peter was one. But there were many others, 500 including the Apostles, in fact. Many of those were living at the date of Paul's writing. If Paul's statements about the resurrection were false, they could easily have spoken up. But there is not record of any rebuttal.
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon Campdon, C'MON?!...Why do believers distort facts & logic so much to validate the ludicrous? First, the oldest carbon date is 70 A.D. so your '20yrs after' remark is made-up. That would place it around 40yrs after at best...big difference when trying to claim direct observation. Second, even if the letter was legit & the people really claimed such witness...WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT PROVE? Do you believe every claim from supposed witnesses of miracles in Hindu, Buddhist or Pagan cultures?
evman5000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@evman5000 "carbon date" You are being generous (thank you) or misleading. We have no original documents to carbon date. The oldest fragment of a manuscript, a copy of the book of John, is dated by the style of script, paleogrphic evidence, to the mid- second century.
But you miss my point. From a purely historical point of view, witnesses writing close to the event both in date and location are are more credible than writings much later. Paul's writings qualify.
campdon 3 months ago
Comment removed
campdon 4 months ago
@evman5000 Equally important is the embedded creed or hymn in chap. 15. Historians agree that this predated Paul's letter,placing that confession of the resurrection to easily only 10 years after the event. So if you want contemporary written testimony, there it is.
But then there is the effect. The people who would have known had Jesus not risen from the dead were the Apostles. Yet they not only believed and preached it, but died because of that conviction. Why if not true?
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon Oh man, your arguments are weak! I'll answer your question with a question...Why, during the Vietnam War, did Buddhist monks CHOOSE to light themselves on fire, and burn to death in meditation, in front of embassies as a demonstration of selfless sacrifice to make a statement to humanity about the atrocities of war? I HAVE SEEN THAT WITH MY OWN TWO EYES! Look it up! That is a REAL miracle, that someone could be so strong & selfless! And they accept NO absolute god of ANY kind! Wake up!
evman5000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@evman5000 Really. You were in Vietnam? Your profile says you are 35 yrs old. If you were in Vietnam then, it had to be as a very young child. Or are you lying?
I do not doubt the commitment of martyrs to their cause. But in the case of the Apostles, it is different. They knew whether Jesus had risen from the dead or not. To die for a false claim is insanity. Unless you are willing to make that charge of all those who would have firsthand knowledge, their testimony is credible.
campdon 3 months ago
@campdon It AMAZES me that believers of this nonsense do every thing they can to use SCIENTIFIC METHOD to substantiate their points, only to deny all other OVERWHELMING scientific evidence against it all! What is that? It is the mark of true delusion, I'm afraid! Please stop and consider it well. You cannot pick & choose which 'facts' you like and claim them as having anything to do with anyone else's reality in an way whatsoever! I have researched well...I found ZERO credibility in this myth!
evman5000 4 months ago
@evman5000 But why reject the value of the NT documents? Many are dated to within 20-40 years of the events. They have all the marks of simple straight forward description. References to externally verified historical events and places are everywhere. Plus there are other documents that corroborate the testimony of the NT written equally early. The Didache for example. If they were reports about a Roman official's life, we would not question their value.
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon Campdon, PLEASE?! Why reject the value of the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Dhammapada, the Tripakata, the I-Ching, the Tao te Ching, the Qabalah, the Popuh Vul, the Sumerian tablets, the code of Hammurabi, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, etc....Oh I'm sure you've researched all of these sources of ancient knowledge and scrutinized them appropriately to discern their meaning and value, RIGHT??? I enjoy intelligent debate, but NOT HYPOCRISY!
evman5000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@evman5000 Isn't this a diversion? Wasn't the question at hand the simple historicity of the resurrection, not comparative religions.
If I were not convinced of the actuality of the resurrection, I might be inclined to explore the religious ideas of men. But that is, if fact, all they claim to be - men's ideas and philosophy. If Jesus rose from the dead, there is a more authoritative voice to be heard, his. So shall we tackle that question first?
campdon 3 months ago
@evman5000 Consider the article "Pagan Resurrection Myths and the Resurrection of Jesus" on Pagan Library.
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon Not at all! What did I say that would possibly contradict this view? I have been challenging claims of specificity that do not seem to conform which reality as I experience it. Denying the veracity of the story of the god-man Jesus in no way is a denial of Spiritual reality & truth.
evman5000 4 months ago
@evman5000 "consciousness creates the manifest world." I kind of like this. But Dr, Goswani is a little late in discovering it. It reminds me of an old text: "In the beginning God."
campdon 4 months ago
@campdon Uh, OK...did you just change your position and now agree?
evman5000 4 months ago
@evman5000 Actually, evman, you are not as spiritually blind as the analogy would suggest. No one is. The spiritual sense is something we all have. The spiritual sense is what enables us to apprehend the essence of things. The video and song is about that ability to apprehend the reality behind the creation. It is also what art is all about. Good art captures the essence of things and is a rationalization of what we understand in our spirit. The same is true of music.
campdon 5 months ago
@campdon Now this I can agree with...well-put! Let me just add that, IMHO, 'Spirit' is a term we apply to refer to essence consciousness while 'Mind' is active consciousness. No matter how u slice it...IT'S ALL CONSCIOUSNESS!!! Btw, quantum physics has basically proven this.
evman5000 4 months ago
absolutely beautiful. Thanks for taking the time to link up the video clips to the appropriate part of the song. I might have to watch this video every morning while the birds are singing their praise to the Most High.
Littleguyintheeye 7 months ago
OUR GOD IS AN AWSOME GOD!
butterrican1 7 months ago
@butterrican1 HUH? To what 'god' are you referring???
evman5000 7 months ago
@spazzcopter - It's a real shame that you haven't experienced the awesomeness of the great God, who is the Architect of the Universes, nor have you experienced the gentleness of his Hand in your life. Why? Because you push him away. Just by what you say... it's obvious you don't want Him in your life. He doesn't dwell where He's not welcome. One day you will wake up! (Hope that it's sooner than later). One day God will call you before His Council. Is your name written in HIs Book of LIfe?
nSTERE0 8 months ago
@nSTERE0 So let me get this straight...God is omnipresent (everywhere present), right?...Then how does God ONLY dwell where he is welcome, huh? Didn't really think that one thru too well, did ya, dummy? Grow up past your silly FEELINGS, and start working that 8 lbs. (or, in your case, more like 3 lbs.) of fatty tissue between your ears called a BRAIN...you know, that mechanism that allows a faith-blinded moron, like yourself, to mangle language & perpetuate NONSENSE! RE-JOIN REALITY NUTCASE!
evman5000 7 months ago
Comment removed
nSTERE0 8 months ago
I watched the images on this video and felt a stirring joy and pride, as any human should, but I had to turn the music off after a minute because I felt insulted by the arrogance of it.
I don't get why anyone could look at the amazing, terrifying beauty and complexity of the natural world and pass it all off as "god did it."
Honestly, how can anyone believe that the universe we live in could possibly have been made in its entirety by any one person, let alone by a selfish, bratty child of a god?
Spazzcopter 8 months ago
haha wow I am in awe at how tacky and cliched these terrible lyrics are...
brainfoodlunch 8 months ago
Anyone with the Karaoke version of this song, could you, as a favor, upload it? We're the Song Warriors (3 gals and 2 guys) of Christian Family Tabernacle who'd like to sing this song at our church on our anniversary late this year. We only perform 4 times a year as a special tribute to the Lord. Thank you.
dreamersline 9 months ago
@dreamersline YUUUCK!!!
evman5000 7 months ago
Which god? I like Horace
bw2182 9 months ago
Spectacular
pelon95 10 months ago
me gusta
adrianeduardovella 11 months ago
The series was much better with out the music.
TheObermiller 11 months ago
8 people dislike this !? why !? it's amazing, awesome, great and beautiful !
thank you very much for this video, i just know how much the world is beautiful.
peacebird97 11 months ago
Absolutely awesome, breathtaking and poweerful in its message. I loved every minute of watching this!
zoezack21 1 year ago 6
Wonderful. jas that touched me. never happened to me before hmm!!
larrythelookout 1 year ago 5
how could i not listen to You, King of Kings, Lord of lords. I love You and i miss You! How could i!
Anneke770 1 year ago
I have alot of Gratitude when listening and watching this. Thank God! Amen.
sbryasha 1 year ago 3
This song is a prayer in itself.... a prayer of grattitude for the Mother Earth , our planetary home, a gift from the Universal Mind, Who designs and manifests this complex and vast cosmos .... a cosmos too much complex in patterns, mathematics,geometry...too much level of a High Inteliigence requiered to be somthing that ramdonly has been evolved out of the blue...
marianamaura1 1 year ago
Ah yes, the beauty of the natural world. Who'd want to invent superstitious, vacuous beliefs about magical gods, jesuses and mohammeds when we have THIS beautiful world?
anglicantian 1 year ago
Though I'm an atheist, the pictures are simply beautiful.
gamegeek2 1 year ago
wow. Many thanks for posting this in high quality. :D
ysa722 1 year ago
What a beautiful video and song. It made me feel so tiny in the scheme of things, and yet so thoroughly blessed. God is truly great. Thankyou for uploading this.
gillettsibert1 1 year ago
I asked God if He existed and He said "yes" God can't lie, so there you have it!
debbydale 1 year ago
Beautiful video! Breathtaking!
ChristiansofAsia 1 year ago
Soooooooo! Beautiful! Praise God!! AMEN! :-)
MrPdugas 1 year ago
Just got this off another Tube:
Christianity : The belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever, if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity, because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Makes perfect sense.
Sorry, but it does explain, albeit comically, why I'm an atheist.
myelectroncloud 1 year ago
And I agree that you can't identify WHO the designer is very well with science, just like you can't identify WHO a painter is or WHO the inventor of an idea is or WHO wrote the Rosetta stone by science. To get the answer to these types of questions, you usually need to go and use the historical method, although science can confirm some things about the WHO if the WHO has made statements or predictions or done actions, etc. that are testable by science.
dotoree 1 year ago
This song is so beautiful that I was moved to freely translated it into Spanish, as a collaboration, so Spanish speaking people could enjoy it too.. see translation in the 2 boxes below......
(Facebook shared)
marianamaura1 1 year ago
Traducción libre al español (Cont.) Amo llegar a la costa y sentir el bramido de las olas, caminar a través de campos de grano dorado interminables en horizontes sin fin.Escuchando el rumor de un rio correr regando la tierra, la fragancia de una rosa en flor,el llanto de un recién nacido…Yo creo…Yo creo como un niño cree…
marianamaura1 1 year ago
Traducción libre al español
He sentido el soplo del viento murmurando Tu Nombre, he visto tus lágrimas al ver la lluvia caer. Cómo podría decir que Dios no existe cuando toda la creación le invoca? Un ave que canta,un majestuoso árbol,la va ...sta inmensidad del mar abierto...viendo los pajaros volar, bajo las estrellas,ahí siento Tu Presencia....Ver más
Hace 11 horas · Me gustaYa no me gusta
marianamaura1 1 year ago
amen. beautiful video. please watch.
utahswampfrog 1 year ago
@myelectroncloud -- Yes, the evidence IS all around you, but If you want a scientific approach be my guest. I wont explain everything now, but let me tell you, Carbon dating, Geologic column and well... accepted science is wrong. If you check your facts and your sources (ie charles darwin) YOu will see that there is nothing else. True science PROVES GOD, even charles darwin admits that.
Chalisevanwyngaardt 1 year ago
@Chalisevanwyngaardt Beauty is one evidence true...esp. the symmetry in nature...but see the links below for a lot more comprehensive evidence from 3 of the best videos defending creation science that I have seen, esp. watch the whole series from Dr. Veith, the Genesis Conflict, starting with the Genes of Genesis one.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree Iv'e said it before, and I'll say it again. "The fact that something exists does not determine what created it." A flower is beautiful, and it exists, but that alone IS NOT EVIDENCE of God.
myelectroncloud 1 year ago
The rival of Darwinian evolution is creationist natural selection published long before Darwin's book by creationists such as Blyth) which includes speciation from the species to about the family level. Darwin's difference from prior creation science is that he postulates that speciation can go WAY past the family level to even astoundingly the kingdom level. We have MANY observable cases for creationist speciation & none for Darwin's levels of evolution that differ from creation science.
dotoree 1 year ago
@myelectroncloud If you'd learned about evolution first, then God would not be required.
-
Do you realize that evolution and the creation event are not rival theories? Evolution deals with how species change. The creation event deals with how life originated. The rival theory to the creation event is abiogenesis. ALL the testable evidence we have shows that life always comes from other life...the law of biogenesis, supporting creation. Abiogenesis is not testable, thus not scientific.
dotoree 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@myelectroncloud Nobody was born atheist or religious. ALL thoughts on all sides were taught to us. Please stop making false claims. I've questioned my religious, cultural, political and national beliefs a HUGE amount and changed some.
Design IS most certainly a compelling evidence of a Designer. It's more of a logical evidence, but also testable since comparable complexity to life has seldom if EVER been observed to arise by chance. The weight of evidence is solidly on the Design side there.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree Oh please. An atheist cannot claim anything unless a theist claims it first. You cannot be taught atheism unless you knew of theism in the first place. Atheism exists as a rejection of theism, and cannot exist in its own right. I cannot claim there is no God, unless I knew of God in the first place. Ergo, it is you that made the claim it was God, not I that said it wasn't.
myelectroncloud 1 year ago
@myelectroncloud The only end of atheism and evolution is your death and the death of everyone. They have not helped in the progress of science at all. The only progress has come from creationist levels of speciation. NOTHING practical or hard science has come from Darwinian levels. It has wasted oodles of money, sent us down many false roads (vestigial organs, junkDNA and others), and caused America to lose it's cutting edge in science. Why reject evidence in order to die?
dotoree 1 year ago
When emotions and bias aren't involved, rational scientists give up even dearly held speculations and follow evidence where it leads. But, most atheists have emotional reasons for not wanting to believe in God, some due to dire misunderstandings of who He is (sometimes this has been due to Christians putting traditions over the Bible and falsely misrepresenting him) and also dire misrepresentation of the mountains of evidence from many fields that support an intelligent creator.
dotoree 1 year ago
@myelectroncloud You probably are unaware that for ~2 millenia atheism has been the aggressive rejection that gods exist and it has made very specific claims. The evidence was far better to support atheism in the past when spontaneous generation and abiogenesis were accepted by academia. Pasteur experiments proved both to be pseudoscience. It's only because these have failed scientifically that atheists have diluted their claims to "lack of belief", which is not a scientific position.
dotoree 1 year ago
@myelectroncloud Linguistically in the Greek and historically, atheism is NOT just "lacking belief". It's not that even these days. Atheists are intentionally and virulently skeptical and NO ONE is born skeptical. In addition atheism is actively trying to be a rival to religion. To RATIONALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY do that instead of just by emotion and accusations, it must provide BETTER evidence than what it criticizes.
dotoree 1 year ago
@myelectroncloud ANYONE can lack belief in ANYTHING. EX: I lack belief atheism is correct. I lack belief in evolution. Heck, I lack belief you exist ;). If I deny any evidence apriori that disagrees with my lack of belief, there's nothing you can do to prove any of the above..and this pseudoscience is precisely what atheists do all the time..they say they lack belief and then deny all existing evidence instead of doing what normal science does..and that is FOLLOW THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. .
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree ...BUT THERE IS NO WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE! Atheism COULD NOT have existed before theism, because we did not know of God. God was introduced into society by humans, through lack of knowledge. I'm sorry, but your comments are exactly the reason I left this Tube; you claim evidence but offer none. Don't misunderstand me, I hold you in high regard, as I have others, but we need to cut to the chase, and proceed one step at a time:
"Most of God's claims are fully testable." Name one.
myelectroncloud 1 year ago
@myelectroncloud I'm sorry, but there is astounding weight of evidence. Biogenesis alone has billions of testable evidences where abiogenesis has NONE, ZERO, ZIPPO. Same with creationist natural selection vs. Darwinian levels of evolution. The list goes on&on. Not only that, evolution directly hinders science. In the case of vestigial organs and junkDNA and others, it told us these were useless and delayed investigation. Now we've found they are VERY important. Creation prediction confirmed.
dotoree 1 year ago
Biogenesis is a claim of the Bible and creation science, creationist natural selection fits within genesis claims. The Bible lists many health principles that when followed add 10 years to life more than the average THESE DAYS...I've sent you some evidence in a PM and that's only a minute part of what I have.
dotoree 1 year ago
I NEVER claim evidence but offer none...but I'm EXTREMELY busy with a host of deadlines now..shouldn't even be commenting now...so just wait a bit and I'll provide FAR FAR more documentation than you could ever read. I have literally 1000s of pages of evidence as well as links to MUCH more than that.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree I don't want thousands; just one. Show me one piece of evidence where God was responsible. You can pick any one thing that God is said to have done. What I want , is for you to say to me, "God did this by..." and then explain the evidence. Let's keep it simple by picking just the one thing.
myelectroncloud 1 year ago
@myelectroncloud OK...but first how about you meet your own standard first since consistent standards are so crucial in in comparing rival theories fairly. Show how non-intelligence could produce life from non-life or show me that speciation can cause Darwinian levels of evolution (at least past the family level). I can provide a number of evidences using both the scientific and historical method. But, first I want to see if you can meet your own standard.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree And remember you asked me to SHOW you..that means OBSERVABLE evidence...not speculative evidence that can be explained in many ways...or at least evidence that pretty much rules out any other idea we know of and is solidly testable. Observable evidence is best by far...but for both views that not always available.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree I can't. And before you go off on triumphant salutations to yourself, I never made the claim that I could. Nor did I suggest any standard for myself to meet. It was you that made the claim it was God, not I that said it wasn't. I'm not trying to get you to renounce your faith, but I am trying to get you reach a goal. I did it once before with great success on someone of equal standing as yourself. I can't tell you what it is; you have to get there yourself for it to mean anything.
myelectroncloud 1 year ago
@myelectroncloud PS: I've been studying atomic and molecular physics for some time, and will no doubt become useful in our ensuing debate.
myelectroncloud 1 year ago
@myelectroncloud If you make no claim and have no evidence you are not doing anything scientific. As soon as anyone provides even a shred of evidence, they win almost by default over that kind of position.
I love learning...sometimes I learn from kids (have learned even from 7 and 9 year olds) even though I'm a professor. The Bible says that intelligent people are always learning. I agree. I will try to get back to you as soon as possible, but have a major conference presentation in 2 days.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree Hmm. If I could explain life from non-life I would be unique. I would quote the Miller-Urey experiment, but that's not conclusive in the evolution of humans. Something's missing, and while this experiment is a positive step in the right direction, if you replace the the missing "something" with God, then all you've done is create another mystery. As an atheist, I make no claims to produce evidence AGAINST God, I merely argue the evidence FOR God. Of which there is none. Back in 2 days.
myelectroncloud 1 year ago
@myelectroncloud God is not at all 100% mystery. He has revealed an enormous amount about himself in different ways. I'm about to leave on the train to the conference...but could you let me know what you would consider evidence, remembering that ANY view that claims to be scientific or rational MUST be based on at least some evidence&hopefully some strong evidence. Remember also that refusing to decide is itself a decision, sort of like refusing to escape when a fire has started in your house.
dotoree 1 year ago
@myelectroncloud Had a great conference, room was packed for my presentation, standing room only! Am now back...still a lot to do, but 1 less thing on my plate at least :). I'm waiting for your answer...did you not see the question? I'm also interested in what you think you can teach me, but first there must be some consistent standards...without that, there's no point in discussing things and little if any chance of genuine progress in knowledge in any field.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree Um, somewhere along the line, this debate has gone from me asking you, to you asking me. I did see your comment, but as previously discussed, it was I that asked the first question to your claims of evidence. I reiterate; I make no claims about the non-existence of God. It is you that claims there is one, and offers evidence to support it. I'm here merely to challenge whatever you come with. Pick one piece of evidence at a time. That way we won't get carried away.
myelectroncloud 1 year ago
Comment removed
dotoree 1 year ago
Before any discussion or debate, some basics and common ground must be established, otherwise discussion is pretty much pointless. I could present something that is accepted as evidence by millions including many academics from many perspectives, but you might be someone who says that anything that disagrees with your opinion isn't evidence..and then I'm just wasting my time. You need to explain at least a BIT what you think counts as evidence and a CONSISTENT standard of evidence.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree Agreed. I will endeavour, wherever possible, to not simply disagree using my opinion alone. I will always try to offer an explanation for my opinion, and you must do the same. Whilst neither of us are likely to change our respective beliefs, I hope, even in a small way, that it helps us to see why the other thinks the way they do.
myelectroncloud 1 year ago
@myelectroncloud I consider these evidence:
1)The scientific method.Observable evidence is strongest.Predictions are good, but wrong ideas sometimes make accurate predictions too,so this is weaker.
2)The historical method&witnesses.There are different levels of credibility. But,hostile witnesses&many witnesses from many views agreeing on what they've seen is highly credible&is the foundation for most historical knowledge& is evidence in court.
3) Logic is good, but a weaker evidence.
Agree?
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree Number 3 is a sticky one, as logic can be taken in two ways. A) Is it based on a persons perception of a thing, or B) is it based on a truth that everyone agrees on?
1 and 2 lead me to two questions: With regard to witnesses, this would depend on what they saw and was it actually possible? In which case refer to No.3 As for the scientific method, I would need to know your definition of "observable" Observation can be made through one or more of our five senses-this is all we have.
myelectroncloud 1 year ago
@myelectroncloud What people think is possible is based on their opinion and biases in many cases. Many times in history, the establishments thought that things witnesses saw were impossible, like that gorillas, pandas, komodo dragons and many others. Time has proved the credible witnesses correct and the establishment wrong. Same with heavier than air flight, space travel and a host of other things. Observable would be with the 5 senses yes.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree So, would you agree then, that this observable evidence could be considered factual? And if so, does it not then follow, that any supposition based on a witnesses account of what they saw, cannot be evidence, since you did not glean this evidence through observation. Although you heard the words the witness spoke, you have no basis for comparison to determine wether or not they spoke the truth.
PS: Thanks for the PM.
myelectroncloud 1 year ago
@myelectroncloud When there are several alternatives, logic is not so helpful. It's then more of a weaker evidence because it can sometimes be based on people's opinions and biases. But, when there are only 2 options and you rule out one, it's pretty strong...or when logic rules out most competitors and leaves one, it's better. But, it can sometimes be based on opinion. I would say that logic is seldom conclusive...but it can be one piece of evidence or point towards good tests of evidence.
dotoree 1 year ago